An Analysis of Black–White Racial Differences in Public Support for Nonviolent Sentencing Reform

Document

Cited in

Author	Kevin H. Wozniak
Published date	01 October 2020
DOI	10.1177/2153368718768388
Date	01 October 2020
Subject Matter	Articles

Article

An Analysis of Black–White

Racial Differences in Public

Support for Nonviolent

Sentencing Reform

Kevin H. Wozniak

Abstract

I examine public support for sentencing reform for nonviolent offenders situated

within a justice reinvestment context. I analyze data from a survey administered to a

nationally representative sample of White and Black Americans. I pay particular

attention to differences in support between the two races, and I analyze the degree to

which ideological beliefs explain interracial differences. I find that a larger number of

both Black and White people support, rather than oppose, sentencing property and

drug offenders to community-based sanctions instead of prison, but the likelihood that

a person will express support or opposition is related to several ideological beliefs and

demographic characteristics. I find that racism and the belief that the criminal justice

system is fair mediate the relationship between race and support for sentencing

property offenders to community-based sanctions, but race continues to exert an

independent effect in regard to sentencing drug offenders.

Keywords

race and public opinion, conflict theory, war on drugs, drugs, community corrections,

race and corrections, bias in the criminal justice system, African/Black Americans,

race/ethnicity, White Americans

Introduction

Criminal justice reform stands at a crossroads. Despite progress toward sentencing

reform at the state level (Porter, 2017), various political actors who favor the old,

“tough on crime” status quo are mobilizing. State-level opponents include prosecutors

University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kevin H. Wozniak, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA.

Email: kevin.wozniak@umb.edu

Race and Justice

2020, Vol. 10(4) 456-479

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368718768388

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

who argue that they need the threat of harsh sentences in order to win plea bargains

(Kaste, 2014; O’Donoghue, 2017) and lawmakers who fear that sentencing reform

would be perceived by voters as “soft on crime” (Goforth, 2017; Hoberock, 2014;

NewsOK, 2014). At the federal level, conservative senators have impeded the prog-

ress of reform bills (Hulse, 2016). The Trump administration, spearheaded by

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is endorsing tough on crime law enforcement prac-

tices of decades past (Greenblatt, 2017; Hulse, 2017). Sessions has explicitly focused

on drug crimes and instructed federal attorneys to pursue “the most serious, readily

provable offense,” a direct repeal of Attorney General Eric Holder’s efforts to

minimize the use of mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession crimes

(Beckett, 2017; Horwitz & Zapotosky, 2017). The much-touted bipartisan prospects

for criminal justice reform in the 21st century are growing less certain.

Are the revitalized opponents of sentencing reform reacting to a resurgence of

punitive sentiment among the American public or are they out of touch with public

support for reform (Enns, 2016)? Penologists have long documented widespread

public support for alternatives to incarceration for the nonviolent offenders who have

been the primary focus of reform efforts to date (Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000;

Gottschalk, 2016; Pfaff, 2017). However, there are reasons to suspect that tough on

crime policy makers may draw upon latent pools of punitive sentiment. Some research

has examined the “exceptions to the rule”: the people who continue to support tough

punishment, even for nonviolent offenders, even among the African American com-

munity that has suffered the most collateral consequences from the “war on drugs”

(Fortner, 2015; Gabbidon, Higgins, & Wilder-Bonner, 2013; Gabbidon, Jordan, Penn,

& Higgins, 2014). Theories of policy change tell us that groups with minority opinions

may still be politically influential under the right circumstances. Coalitions are

typically a fluid constellation of shifting groups, and the policy status quo can be up

ended when previously quiescent or inactive groups are mobilized to join a political

conflict. In other words, pockets of minority opinion in the mass public are always

potential sources of support for a new policy regime (Arnold, 1992; Baumgartner &

Jones, 2010; Schattschneider, 1960). Thus, I consider whether there is evidence that

sentencing reform opponents might be more politically influential than reform

proponents.